042808 EDA
~
CITY OF NEW HOPE
EDA MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
April 28, 2008
EDA Meeting will commence upon
adjournment of the City Council Meeting
President Martin Opem Sr.
Commissioner Andy Hoffe
Commissioner Karen Nolte
Commissioner Daniel Stauner
(one vacant seat)
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of regular meeting minutes of Marcl1 24, 2008
4. Resolutions associated with the acquisition and financing mechanisms available to
the Council/ED A for the acquisition of the Bass Lake Road Apartment complex
(improvement project no. 836)
5. Brief update on the city center project (improvement project no. 842)
6. Adjournment
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
IMP. PROJECT 842
Item 4
EDA Meeting
Page 1
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
March 24, 2008
Ci ty Hall
President Opem called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority
to order at 9:20 p.m.
Present:
Martin Opem Sr., President
Andy Hoffe, Commissioner
Karen Nolte, Commissioner
Daniel Stauner, Commissioner
Absent:
Steve Sommer, Commissioner
Staff Present:
Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Julie Linnihan, Finance Manager
Jason Quisberg, City Engineer
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Motion was made by Commissioner Nolte, seconded by Commissioner
Stauner, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2008. Voting
in favor: Opem, Hoffe, Nolte, Stauner; and the following voted against: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer. Motion carried.
President Opem introduced for discussion Item 4, Request that the EDA
authorize staff to proceed with contracting LHB Corporation for a probability
analysis report of the city center area (improvement project no. 842).
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, stated staff has
been meeting with Ryan Companies regarding the potential redevelopment of
the city center area and construction of a Super Target. He stated the city,
Krass Monroe and Ryan Companies have discussed contracting with LHB to
conduct a "probability review" for the parcels and ten buildings proposed for
inclusion in a tax increment district. He stated a probability analysis would be
a less extensive analysis than a full blight report, but would be adequate in
determining the structural substandard status of the buildings.
Mr. Jacobsen stated the quote from LHB Corporation to perform the
probability analysis report is $2,500 which would be split 50-50 betvveen the
city and Ryan Companies.
Mr. Jacobsen stated if the EDA authorizes the probability analysis, it will be
completed within 60 days.
March 24, 2008
MOTION
Item 4
NORTH RIDGE CARE
CENTER
Item 5
ADJOURNMENT
EDA Meeting
Page 2
President Opem questioned whether a similar report was previously
conducted for the area. Staff could not recall such a report being done in the
past. Ms. Julie Linnihan, finance manager, stated she would confirm her
findings but to the best of her knowledge, a probability analysis has not been
undertaken for the city center area.
Commissioner Hoffe inquired of the timeline for learning of the project's
financial feasibility.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that staff intends to present financial information from
Krass Monroe at the April 28 EDA meeting.
Mr. Jacobsen explained the definition of "structurally substandard" and noted
a building could be considered structurally substandard if it does not meet
current building codes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Nolte, seconded by Commissioner
Stauner, authorizing staff to proceed with contracting LHB Corporation for
a probability analysis report of the city center area (improvement project
no. 842) for a cost of $2,500 to be shared 50-50 between the city and Ryan
Companies. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
President Opem introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution authorizing
signatures on Termination of Covenants and Restrictions related to the North
Ridge Care Center, 5430 Boone Avenue North, Minnesota Masonic Home
North Ridge, owner.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, explained that he has discussed the matter
with the attorney from Minnesota Masonic Home North Ridge. Mr. Sondrall
stated from a legal standpoint it may be less cumbersome to have the
requested action undertaken by the HRA rather than the EDA as the
covenants were originally approved by the HRA. He noted the city never
abolished the HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority) even though its
powers were transferred to the EDA, but commented that city must post a
separate meeting notice for the HRA meeting.
The EDA agreed to postpone action on Item 5 until April 14, 2008, at which
time the Council will serve in an HRA capacity.
Motion was made by Commissioner Nolte, seconded by Commissioner
Stauner, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
March 24, 2008
EDA/Council
Request for Action
Originating Department
Approved for Agenda
Agenda Section
Community Development
April 28, 2008
EDA
Item No.
By: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD By:
Kirk McDonald, City Manager
4
Resolutions associated with the acquisition and financing mechanisms available to the Council/EDA for the
ac uisition of the Bass Lake Road A artment com lex (im rovement ro'ect no. 836)
Requested Action
Staff requests that the EDA consider adoption of the attached resolutions relating to the acquisition and
financing mechanisms available for the acquisition of the Bass Lake Road Apartment complex. Jim Casserly
from Krass Monroe will be present to address any questions you may have.
Policy/Past Practice
The city's mission statement under ValueslFiscal Responsibility states: "We believe that fiscal responsibility
and the prudent stewardship of public funds and city assets is essential if residents are to have confidence in
government. The city's mission statement also identifies Ul1der Strategic Goals: "The city will use frugal
spending and resourceful financial management to maintain its fiscal health. Additionally, the city has
historically made every effort to retain for use all possible financial mechanisms available under the law.
Background
At the COUl1cil vwrk session on April 21, the COUl1cil reviewed a memorandum from Jim Casserly from Krass
Monroe that provided a detailed picture of the revenues available to the city to assist in the financing of the
Bass Lake Road Aparhnent complex acquisition and other potential future projects. Specifically, the
discussion involved actions that would be necessary to retain the maximum flexibility for the Council/EDA as
these projects moved forward.
Casserly provided a total of six COUl1cil and EDA resolutions to address all flexibility issues. Titles areas
follows:
1. COUl1cil - Resolution assigning the Bass Lake Road Apartment complex purchase agreement to the
EDA.
2. COUl1cil - Resolution determining that five parcels of land are occupied by structurally substandard
buildings.
Second by
Motion by
To:
/7_/L,J
o v._ ()il
6 f/ Lf
of.-O 7.
I:\RFA \PLANNING\PLA.NNING\Q & R - BLR A t 4-28-08.doc
Request for Action
Page 2
April 28, 2008
3. ED A- Resolution accepting assignment of the Bass Lake Road Apartment Complex purchase
agreement from the city of New Hope.
4. EDA - Resolution determining that five parcels of land are occupied by structurally substandard
buildings.
5. EDA - Resolution declaring the official intent of the New Hope Economic Development Authority to
reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the Economic
Development Authority.
6. EDA - Resolution approving interfund loans associated with the proposed acquisition and
redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road Apartments Redevelopment Project.
Attachment(s)
Ij) City Attorney letter 4-24-08
Ij) EDA Resolutions
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 08-_
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ASSIGNMENT OF THE
BASS LAKE ROAD APARTMENT COMPLEX
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope (hereafter City) has entered into a March 10, 200S Purchase
Agreement for the purchase of an apartment complex commonly lmown as the Bass Lake Road Apartments
legally described on Exhibit A attached to this resolution (hereafter Property), and
WHEREAS, since the revenues which will be used to purchase the Property belong to the Economic
Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope (hereafter EDA) and not the City, it is appropriate
that title to the Property be taken in the name of the EDA and not the City, and
WHEREAS, it is therefore appropriate and in the best interests of the City that the March 10,2008
Purchase Agreement for purchase of the Property be assigned to the EDA
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the
New Hope as follows:
1. The City's assignment of the March 10,2008 Purchase Agreement for the purchase of the
apartment complex commonly 1m own as the Bass Lake Road Apartments legally desclibed on
the attached Exhibit A is hereby accepted.
2. The Executive Director and President are hereby authorized and directed to sign all
necessary documents to facilitate this assignment of the Purchase Agreement from the City.
3. The Executive Director is further authorized and directed to take all necessary
actions to facilitate a closing of the Property so title to the Property can be acquired in the
name of the EDA.
Dated the 2Stl1 day of April, 2008.
Martin E. Opem Sr., President
Attest:
Kirk McDonald, Executive Director
P:',ATTO?.1';EY'.S.-\S'.j CLIENT FlLES2 CiT'{ OF NE'N HO?289-1lJ:i4\B:....SS LA....'(E RO..!..D ..!...P.~.RT>~ENTsr,REsOLUTiON B'I{ ED/.. .....CCEPT ..:."sSIGN OF ?';"DOC
-1-
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 5, Block 1, Gervais & Hunter Replat
(pill No. 06-118-21-42-0012)
Lot 4, Block 1, Gervais & Hunter Replat
(pill No. 06-118-21-42-0011)
Lot 3, Block 1, Gervais & Hunter Replat
(Pill No. 06-118-21-42-0010)
Lot 2, Block 1, Gervais & Hunter Replat
(pill No. 06-118-21-42-0009)
Lot 1, Block 1, Gervais & Hunter Replat
(Pill No. 06-118-21-42-0008)
Commissioner introduced the following resolution, the reading of
which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption:
NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT FIVE PARCELS OF LAND ARE
OCCUPIED BY STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the
New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed that the Authority identify PINs 06-118-21-42-0008,
06-118-21-42-0009, 06-118-21-42-0010, 06-118-21-42-0011 and 06-118-21-42-0012
(the "Parcels") for inclusion in a future tax increment financing district.
1.02. It has been further proposed that the Authority cause the demolition of the
structures located on the Parcels prior to the Parcels' inclusion in a tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10(d).
Section 2. Findinqs.
2.01. The Authority hereby finds that the Parcels are located within
Redevelopment Project NO.1.
2.02. The Authority hereby finds that the redevelopment of the Parcels furthers
the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
2.03. The Authority hereby finds that the Parcels are occupied by structures that
are vacant and structurally substandard as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subdivision 10(b).
2.04. The Authority hereby finds that the substandard buildings should be
demolished and the Parcels prepared for redevelopment.
1
Section 3. Declaration of Intent.
3.01. The Authority hereby declares its intent to demolish, or cause to be
demolished, the substandard buildings.
3.02. The Authority hereby declares its intent to include the Parcels within a tax
increment financing district, the certification of which must be requested from the
Hennepin County Auditor within three (3) years of the date of the demolition or removal
of the substandard structure.
Section 4. Notice to County Auditor.
4.01. Upon the establishment of a tax increment financing district which
includes the Parcels and the subsequent request for certification of the tax capacity of
the Parcels, the Authority shall notify the Hennepin County Auditor that the original tax
capacity of the Parcels must be adjusted as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
Adopted by the Board of the Authority this
day of
,2008.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner , and upon vote being taken thereon the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by
the President and attested to by the Executive Director.
President
ATTEST:
Executive Director
2
CERTIFICATION
I, , Executive Director of the New Hope Economic
Development Authority, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the Authority
on the day of , 2008.
Executive Director
3
NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT
OF THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. 9 1.150-2 (the
"Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse
prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "ED A") expects to
incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and
reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax -exempt bond;
WHEREAS, the EDA has determined to make this declaration of official intent
("Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF C01v11VlJSSIONERS OF
THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:
1. The EDA, in conjunction with the City of New Hope, proposes to undertake the
following the acquisition and redevelopment ofthe Bass Lake Road Apartment site (the "Project").
[insert project name and brief description]
2. The EDA reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for ceriain costs of
the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated ma.ximum principal amount of $4,000,000.
All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other
expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.l50-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement
Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any
original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of
bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amOlmt
not in excess of $1 00,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or ( c) "preliminary expenditures"
up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that
finance or are reasonably expected by the EDA to finance the project for which the preliminary
expenditures were incurred. The term "preliminary expenditures" includes architectural,
engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and sinlilar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of
acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation,
and similar costs incident to commencement of construction.
4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the EDA
based on the facts and circumstances known to the EDA as of the date hereof. The anticipated
original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in
paragraph 2 are consistent with the EDA's budgetary and fmancial circumstances. No sources
other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the EDA are, or are reasonably expected to be,
reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the EDA's budget or
financial policies to pay such Project expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the New Hope Economic Development
Authority this _ day of _,2008.
President
Attest:
Executive Director
Commissioner introduced the following resolution, the reading of
which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption:
NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERFUND LOANS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE PROPOSED ACQillSITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
BASS LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the New Hope
Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01 The Authority is considering the redevelopment of property known as the Bass Lake
Road Apartments and adjacent areas generally located in the Northeast quadrant of Bass Lake Road
and Yukon Avenue N. (the "Site").
1.02 The Authority has agreed to finance certain costs in categories identified on Exhibit A
(the "Qualified Costs") from Authority funds available for such purposes by making loans from its
funds to its TIP Districts 3-1 (Ryland/East Wim1etkalCVS) and 4-1 (Old Frank's Nursery) (the
"Existing TIP Districts").
1.03 The Authority has already advanced or loaned money and will continue to advance or
loan money to finance Qualified Costs under Milmesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4
from its general fund or any other fund under which it has legal authority to do so, pursuant to
Milmesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 7.
1.04 The Authority may create a redevelopment tax increment financing district (the
"Future TIP District") on the Site pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4j.
1.05 The AuthOlity intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments
generated from the Existing TIP Districts and the Future TIP District (hereinafter refened to as the
"TIP Districts"), in accordance with tem1S ofthis resolution (which tem1S are refened to collectively
as the "TIP Loans").
1.06 The Authority acknowledges the need to create and maintain an ongoing Register of
Advances (the "Register"), as shown on Exhibit A, to reflect the continuing interfund loans and
advances in accordance with the TIF Loans.
Section 2.
Terms of the TIF Loans.
2.01 The Authority shall repay the specific Authority fund from which the Qualified Costs
were and are to be paid, the principal amounts not to exceed $4,000,000 as shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto, together with accrued interest from the date of each expenditure at a rate which may
not exceed the greater of the rates specified under (a) Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 270CAO or (b)
Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 549.09. The interest rate for each calendar year during the term of each TIF
Loan shall be determined as of each January 1 using the maximum rate under clause (a) or (b) in
effect as of that date.
2.02 Principal and interest payments (the "Payments") for each TIF Loan shall be paid
annually on December 31 of the first year of receipt of Available Tax Increment (defined in Sec. 2.03
below) and on each December 31 thereafter (the "Payment Dates"), up to and including the earlier of
(a) payment in full of each TIF Loan or (b) the termination date of the TIF District. Payments shall
be applied first to accrued interest and the balance to the reduction of principal. Interest accruing
from the date of each expenditure to the first Payment Date shall be compounded annually on
December 31 of each year and added to principal.
2.03 Payments on each TIF Loan are payable solely from Available Tax Increment, which
shall mean the tax increment available from the TIF Districts and available for that purpose from any
other tax increment financing district, after withholding (a) allowable Authority administrative fees,
and (b) prior obligations, which shall include all general obligation or revenue bonds or notes for
which the tax increment revenues of the TIF Districts are pledged.
2.04 The principal sum and accrued interest payable under each TIF Loan may be prepaid
in whole or in part at any time without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment of any TIF Loan
shall affect the amount or timing of any regular payments otherwise required to be made under the
TIF Loans.
2.05 Each TIF Loan is evidence of internal borrowing by the Auth0l1ty in accordance with
Milmesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from
the Available Tax Increments pledged to the payment thereof under this resolution. The Auth0l1ty
shall have no obligation to pay any principal amounts of the TIF Loans or accrued interest thereon
which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
2.06 The Auth0l1ty may amend the telms of any TIF Loan at any time by resolution ofthe
Board of Commissioners, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amounts and
accrued interest to the extent pennissible under law.
2
Section 3. Approval. The Board of the Authority hereby approves the creation of a Register
of Advances and the appointment of the Finance Director of the City to maintain the Register to
reflect an accurate accounting of the interfund loans and advances, and approves their repayment in
accordance with the TIF Loans.
Adopted by the Commissioners of the Authority this
day of
,2008.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner
, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the President
and attested to by the Executive Director.
President
ATTEST:
Executive Director
,.,
;)
CERTIFICATION
I, , Executive Director ofthe New Hope Economic Development
Authority, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of Resolution No. passed by the Authority on the day of
2008.
Executive Director
4
EXHIBIT A
REGISTER OF ADVANCES
QUALIFIED EXPENSE I DATE PAID I AMOUNT PAID
Land/Building Acquisition
Relocation
Site Improvements/Preparation Costs I
Installation of Public Utilities I
Parking Facilities I I
Streets and Sidewalks I
Public Park Facilities
I Social, Recreational, Etc. I
Interest Reduction Payments I
Capitalized Interest
Other - Interest Expense I
Other - Costs of Issuance
Other - Reserve Fund I I
Other - Contingency I
Administrative Costs I
Bond Discount I I
Bond Principal Payments I I
I Bond Interest Payments
Loan Principal Payments
Loan Interest Payments
I Transfers Out
I Transfers Out - Pooling
5
EDA
Request for Action
Originating Department
Approved for Agenda
Agenda Section
Community Development
April 28, 2008
EDA
Item No.
5
By: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD By:
Kirk McDonald, City Mana er
Brief u date on the Ci
Requested Action
City staff and Mark Schoening from Ryan Companies, Inc., the "Redeveloper," request to provide the EDA
with a brief update on the progress to date regarding the City Center Project and to return in May with a
more detailed presentation.
Policy/Past Practice
It is past practice of the staff to schedule periodic updates for the EDA on improvement projects. This update
is called for in the interim agreement.
Background
The city and Redeveloper entered into an Interim Agreement on January 28, 2008. A number of steps and
timing issues were identified with April 28 as the first scheduled event before the EDA. Staff, the Redeveloper
and Krass Monroe have met numerous times over the last three months, and the following milestones have
been met, including the following documents:
<il February 15 - TIF District Qualification Smnmary
€> February 25 Staff blight analysis Phase lA
<il March 7 - Staff blight analysis Phase IB
<il March 24 - TIF Revenue Analysis for Phase lA
<il April14 LHB and inspection staff met regarding probability analysis
<il April 21 - TIP Revenue Analysis for Phase 1B
e The Developer has met on several occasions with the school district and other affected parties
regarding the costs to acquire and to relocate their operations.
The meeting tonight was intended to offer the opportunity for the Redeveloper and the staff to present their
findina on the financial feasibili T of the ro osed Phase I of the ro'ect to the EDA. The last stage in the
Motion by
Second by
To:
Request for Action
Page 2
April 28, 2008
assembly of the preliminary information is taking longer than anticipated, and for that reason a general
update be given at this time, and a more thorough analysis/review in May. Staff and the Redeveloper require
more time to fully interpret the information that has been collected prior to a presentation with
recommendation related to the financial feasibility of the potential project. The delay of a more detailed
presentation will not necessarily have any affect on the future schedule laid out in the Interim Agreement.
Representatives of the Redeveloper and the city's redevelopment council will be in attendance at the meeting.
Attachment(s)
@ TIF District Qualification Summary
@ Staff blight analysis Phase lA
@ Staff blight analysis Phase IB
z
m
~
:!:
o
=c
m
I
::!
""fl
o
en
-l
~
(')
-l
;)
c:
)>
C
::!!
(')
~
o
z
en
c:
S
S
)>
;;tl
-<
!ll
0'
C1
@
u
Z
o
;1;
~
~
;:;-
a
'"
'"
Q
;~
(')
Q
::l
Cii
...
,
U'J
m
(")
g
10
...
c..~ .;:.. w N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0:> 0:> 0:> 0:> 0:>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w w w w w
6 6 6 6 6
0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0
~ '" ~ 0:> N
(") > 0 U'J U'J
-Z ~ 0 Q. Q.
Q: c: 0 0
2- ::l
n) - 0 Q.
-< -
z c: _ CD >
Q '" Co c: ~
:E ); [ '"
CD G)
~ 7.J cD ~
> ::l ~
!ll
Q rg
~
il
'" '" .;:..
~ '" 0:>
m 0 .;:.. N .;:..
'" ~ <.0 .;:.. 0:>
'" .;:.. ~ ~
fi' r:;> &'
~ is. is. ~ ::l
> > Q. ~
< < 6' n;
0 0
z z
w
c..~ w .;:.. .;:.. '"
0 CJl ,'" 0:> <.0
"'0 (" ~ cr, :...,
0 c..~ .;:.. 0:> .;:..
0 '" 0 0:> 0:>
g
'<
(")
Q
::l
~
.
z
m
(")
o
:;
Q
...
<.0 0:> '" CJl
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
0:> 0:> 0:> 0:>
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,
N
N N N N
6 6 6 6
0 0 0 0
~ :t: w
'" w c..~
5= c > G)
::l CD m
<' <' x '"
0 0 > Qo
Ul Ul c: ~
~ ~ 0.
0 0 0' or
0 0 rs;; !!!.
0' Q CD i
~ ~ x
'" '" ~
0 0 ~ (jj
0 0 0
::l
U U Qo 7.J
~ 3- U'J 0
::l m 9?
'" '" ~ '"
'" '" 0:>
0 0 ~ N
0 0 ~ 0
.;:.. .;:.. 22 .;:..
N N r:;>
::l ::l ~ is.
0. 0.
> ~ CD >
< (jj <
0 0 ~ 0
z z z
>
::;
~ N .;:.. N
0 <.0 N ~
"'0 (" <0
0:> 0 .;:.. 0
.;:.. 0 CJl c..~
Q
-<
(")
g
Cii
...
,
z
:ii:
(")
o
...
::l
~
~ ~ ~
N ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
0:> 0:> 0:>
~ ~ ~
, , ,
~ ~
6 6 6
0 0 0
0 ~
w CJl 0:>
$: z ~
C1 0
0 :E
0 ~
::l ~
m
;:;- m
(jj 0 0
$: 0
~ ::l
~
.;:.. .;:.. .;:..
N N W
0 0 0
~ Cf ,
:ii: .;:.. ~
N
5' w ;:::j
~ <D ~
'" ~ ~
m :2 :2
> ~ ~
<
0 '" '"
Z m !ll
." ."
W .;:..
N c..~
0:> 0:> 01
in "'.;:.. 1"
'" -"
w N <D
~
o
0 ~ I~ ~ 0 ~ I~I~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
0 Ol Ol CD Z ~ Ol CD Ol
... f:. 5. 5. 0 5. f:. 5.
< a: a: a: ::l 9; a: a: a:
0 0
5' 5' 5' ::l 5' 5' 5'
,Q: ,Q: ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
g- g- g- g- o. 0. 0.
... ... ...
<' <' <. <' < <' <'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
N N ~ CJl W 0 w
<D w c..~ <D ,0:> N <D ~
"0 "'.;:.. :..., 0:> ~ <0 k> 0:>
'" .;:.. CJl <D '" <.0 ~ <D
01 0 0:> (J1 0 <D 0:> w <D
<D 0 ~I~
-
CD Ol Ol
5, 5, 5,
a: a: a:
5' 5' 5'
F'
0
~
5"
0
,Q: .9: ~
g- g- g-
<' <' <'
0 0 0
Ul Ul
~ N .;:..
N 0:> ~
(J1 01 0
:..., in 0:>
~ '" 01
CJl -" '"
N (J1 ~
'" 0 --.J N ~
in "'.;:.. "'0 (" <0
0 c..~ '" 0 CJl
0 .;:.. -" w N
c..~ --.J 01 .;:..
0 0 0 0 0
"" "" "" '#. '#.
0 0 0
~
in
0
.s 0 0 0 0
~ .;:.. CJl w
in (" "'.;:.. ("
~ <D .;:.. ~
w (J1 N 01
<.0 0:> CJl <.0
0 0 0 0
"" "" "" ""
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
.;:.. 01
.;:.. --.J 0:>
k> :..., "'.;:..
0:> CJl --.J
CJl N 0:>
<D <D <D
0 0 0
"" "" ""
0 0 0
0 0 0
o
<
~
""""-J -:.. vi
o (J1 0
?ft. ~ ~
~a8a@a
U'J=:J w::J =
Oa)~.~~ro
-. C.WPJ
cnOJco...,.......rr
~:re ~~g.~
~a3.g QcB~
~s:~~ffi-..cn
2 CD 0 C1 OJ ::J
Q.~~gaS?.
=;c:Jp..ar~:r
~ ffi- 5' ~ ~
5' [ g.
!ll a: co
0. 5' 0
-. co c:
~ ..en Er
c=r C/J E:.
3' @ 9;
c: 0 ::l
~ ..u; ~
0' c: ::l
CD ::=:. .,.J
o = c:
(") ~ ~
C1 Ul 0'
c: ' (!)
"'2. "C Cf)
(!) OJ _
0. < ...
C"' CO ~
'< 0. _
0'" to ~
c:: C3 ~
= < '<
9: CD en
~ .;- c:
Ul OJ 0'
. ... Ul
en c: OJ
::r ::J ::J
(!) CO 0.
(!) - OJ
_ 0 ...
..U'J en c.
c: 0 III
::; .." ::J
== en C-
m' 3' CO
en -. ..0
~ ~ !:.
OJ cn CD
~ :; en
0. c: c:
-. C1 0'
CQ E" ~
OJ @ m
< Ul ::l
Cl> =:
- - III
"00-
III 0'
~ CO
5'
CO
'2:
~
5
III
'<
Ul
(ii.
N
o
o
CO
-:.. -:.. -:..
~.,o C,J1
~<.o CJl
<DCO <D
<D' , --.J'
--.JO:><DoO:>
~r::3~~~
ru 0,) """I """'l ......
C1 C1 (!) 0 0
E"c-g-g ~
III III -,-,
--C3-'cn
8~ Cl~.g
< r::: en C") PJ
~~-g~G3
c8CD~~~
CDCS'ctl~S.
s.CO'ro
Q.
cern
III CO
Q..o
c: c:
OJ =i'
-0
0"0.
5g:
3: to"
(!) ::l'
0. _
ct>
0"0.
~[
:l a:
CO ='
Ul ~
CO
Ul
U
7.J
m
~
7.J
m
o
Ol
-<
^
7.J
>
U'J
(fJ
$:
o
Z
7.J
o
m
u
?>
~ I WI
W .;:.. .;:.. --.J
01 --.J 0:> <.0
I~ ~ /g; ~
o --.J 0 0:> 0:>
-" IN I';:"/N
o <D N N
ow"io--'
0:> 0 .;:.. 0
.;:.. 0 01 (J1
NI~I~
0:> 0:> CJl
c..~ "'.;:.. in
'" ~ ~
W N <D
~
~
CO
t::3
o
o
0:>
Memorandum
To: Curtis Jacobsen, Community development Specialist
From: Roger Axel, Building Official QQ./-.
Date: February 25, 2008
Subj ect: City Center Blight Report
At the request of the City Manager, I have had the opportunity to complete a brief visual inspection of
the seven properties identified in the proposed TIF district blight report. The individual inspection of
each building did not include any in-depth inspections but rather consisted of exterior and interior
observations of each building. Because of the age of all of the identified buildings, they all would have
similar items that may require corrections or improvements that would identify each building as
"structurally substandard" based on the definition in MN Statutes Section 469.174 Definitions
Subdivision 10 Redevelopment district. Each individual building may perform adequately with existing,
structural components, exterior envelope, and mechanical equipment. For the purposes of this report,
based on the Statute provisions Subpart (c), I believe that it would involve more than the 15% of new
construction costs allowed by Statute to modify each building to meet the current building code
requirements.
L. _~
Page 1 of2
Jacobsen Curtis
From: Gay Cerney [gcerney@krassmonroe.com]
Sent: Monday, February ii, 2008 9:56 AM
To: McDonald Kirk; Jacobsen Curtis
Subject: Redevelopment TIF district qualification
Kirk and Curtis,
Below are the relevant sections regarding parcel qualification for inclusion in a redevelopment TIF district. Paragraph (a)(1)
covers both tests: the 70% "coverage" test and the over 50% "structurally substandard buildings" test. The definition of
"structurally substandard" is also included.
Gay
************
Sec. 469.174 Definitions
Subd. 10. Redevelopment district.
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within
which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district,
exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are "occupied by" [see (e) below for definition] buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects. in structural elements or a
combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout
and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance,
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be
modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same
square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under
the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average
cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a
determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the
. cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1)
the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party
that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is
structurally substandard. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion include recent fire or police inspections, on-site
property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence. Written
documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under
section 469.175, subdivision 3, clause (1). Failure of a building to be disqualified under the provisions of this paragraph is a
necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to determining that the building is substandard.
'i/11/"'l[V\O
. f('__....
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN 11-/1'3-;;? 1'23 -(}O I:f' (established for purposes of assessment)
.s:ct:l~c- /.J.U5 Gff~L
Occupied by building(s) Yes;( No
Railroad Property
Yes
No X'
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
Footings
Facilities
LightIV entilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
X'
$=
I
I
Iv"
~
'Iv
r
No
No
Comments, attach
documentation If yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
s' ~ jO/;-0/"<:::;5
. \
I
I
I
I
I
/
posS/&Gf.r
A building is not structurally substandard if It is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
x .15
$
Estimated cost of modification $
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
~
~
\~
.Vi
J
.<;
U)
n
::c
\)
l)
,..
\J:)
~
~
~
~
~
~
ct-,
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN l7-I/g-:Jl-J3~()~(}2 (established for purposes of assessment)
,Sc/IO(} L ,LJOfi1rA/.
Occupied by building(s) Yes X No
Railroad Property
Yes
'1/'
No /\
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
Footings
Facilities
Light/V entilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
-1-
=+
-r
I
-J;
.?;......
v
.?'
No
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
No
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
S'G-e- P f':;!iQ/'"'c)..5
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
J
P oss/g>(&;-
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% or the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
x .15
$
Estimated cost of modification
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
\J
~
~
v)
It\
()
i'"
0"
o
r
~
~
~
~
'"'
'-'\
~
~
o
~
CD
r-
tJ
!))
'I,
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN 17-/I?-;2I-]3-00{)! (established for purposes of assessment)
C tntdfP...y f(I7ZIkAl
Occupied by building(s) Yes X No
Railroad Property
Yes
No X
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Comments, attach
documentation jf yes
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
No
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Footings
Facilities
Light/V entilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
X-
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
..y
"^-
..5'6~ /t;.7~~5
I
I
I
f
I
L
P oS 51./?L (;--
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
x .15
$
Estimated cost of modification $
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
r>
c
<.
j
fJ
""
~
....
d
:t
tel
-<
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN /7 ~//g.-~/-23-0ti/7 (established for purposes of assessment)
/l tt'TtJ J./Ii<<.s
Occupied by building(s) Yes~ No
Railroad Property
Yes
NoL
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:,
Yes
Footings
Facilities
Light/V entilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
x:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
/'\..
No
No
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
:s: c=c-- P ~?'Os
POSS/5Lb-
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the bUilding code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
x .15
$
Estimated cost of modification $
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
'"
rC)O~
~
c;
i
\)
~
q
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PJN 17-/11':21;;2-{}(/(5'
c-?45- 1- S/??rJ-5?f
Occupied by building(s)
(established for purposes of assessment)
YesL No
Railroad Property
Yes
No )""
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
i
. !
Other Deficiencies:
No
Yes
Footings
Facilities
LightIV entilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
J
~
I
I
-L
I
I
I
I
.J/
/\.
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
s: 6-"b- P/k:/<=)5
Po S Slf L.(;;:-
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the bullding code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
Estimated cost of modification $
x .15
$
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
~
~
'-'\
'-f\t} _
\,f\
\)
~
~
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN /7-119-)./-,)) -t7t71J(established for purposes of assessment)
;fir/( /It.{f)(o .
OccupIed by building(s) Yes1 No
Railroad Property
Yes
N04
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
OtherDeficiencies:
Yes
No
Footings
Facilities
LighWentilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
,-,,'
/i\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'-/.
""'-
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
_':r6!e::- p /:;/g 7e 5
poSS/jj'(t;-
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
appficable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
Estimated cost of modification $
x .15
$
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
,
h.
'-..-
~
t'
?J
"
~
C'
\;J
'"
iF'
V
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN 17-/jJ7.-.JI-J. 2-06JYCestablished for purposes of assessment)
tlN( U..(;f..Sal CoZa;?..
Occupied by building(s)
V
Yes-6-
Railroad Property
Yes
NoX
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
No
Footings
Facilities
LighWentilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
--.../
-4f
=t=
I
I
I
(
.0-
/'.
No
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
5.ec- p #:J~ 5'
poSS/}J'Lc-
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance 'vvith the bUilding code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
Estimated cost of modification $
x .15
$
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
F""-
~
....
~
rc,
~
VI
-b
i"-
,
1)
0"
i"
(!)
f'J
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN ltf/8-)/-2J.-Otlt7 (estc;lblished for purposes of ~ssessment)
!/(NIV,.f/?)(?~ (!oi-C)/( (l&zcdt-0('Y C0.i G"kJT)
Occupied by building(s) Yes_ No)(
Railroad Property
Yes
No X'
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
No
Footings
Facilities
LighWentilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy ConseNation
Handicap Access
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost or
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square rootage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost or new structure $
Estimated cost of modification $
x .15
$
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
BLIGHT FORM DOCUMENT
REASONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174, subdivision 10 Redevelopment District
PIN /7 -1/%-.}/~)3-(}()11
IJ.ktlf~rlCir;- 1!~0l
Occupied by building(s)
(established for purposes of assessment)
Yes_
Railroad Property
Yes
Building
Defects in structural elements: Yes
No
Footings
Foundation
Columns
Beams
Floors
Roof System
Other
Other Deficiencies:
Yes
No
Footings
Facilities
LighWentilation
Fire Protection
Egress
Layout
Interior part
Other Factors
Asbestos
Energy Conservation
Handicap Access
NoX
No X
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
Comments, attach
documentation if yes
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site.
Estimated cost of new structure $
Estimated cost of modification $
x .15
$
CERTIFICATION: Building IS/IS NOT structurally substandard requiring substantial
renovation or clearance
i
, ") / ~- ( I
) C i
" '~ I (
~ ~
~ ejL/1 '10
',/7/03
,~Ou
C.1f
j2ill,
Memorandum
To: Curtis Jacobsen, Community development Specialist
From: Roger Axel, Building Official
Date: March 7, 2008
Subject: City Center Blight Report
At the request of the City Manager, I have had the opportunity to complete a brief visual inspection of
the three additional properties identified (McDonalds, New Hope Mall and Winnetka Center) in the
proposed TIF district blight report. The individual inspection of each building did not include any in-
depth inspections but rather consisted of exterior and interior observations of each building. Because of
the age of all of the identified buildings, they all would have similar items that may require corrections
or improvements that would identify each building as "structurally substandard" based on the
definition in MN Statutes Section 469.174 Definitions Subdivision 10 Redevelopment district. Each
individual building may perform adequately with existing; structural components, exterior envelope,
and mechanical equipment. For the purposes of this report, based on the Statute provisions Subpart (c), I
believe that it would involve more than the 15% of new construction costs allowed by Statute to modify
each building to meet the current building code requirements.